DEMOCRATIC  ATTACKS  ON  THE  NATIONAL 
ELECTION  LAWS. 


ZslH.  73 

cl 


SPEECH 


OP 


HON.  JOHN  A.  ANDERSON, 

OF  KANSAS, 


IN  THE 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES, 


JUNE  15,  1880. 


WASHINGTON. 

1880. 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  JOHN  A. 


ANDERSON. 


On  the  Senate  concurrent  resolution  in  relation  to  the  joint  rule  for  counting  the 
votes  of  electors  for  President  and  Vice-President. 

Mr.  ANDERSON  said : 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  desire  to  present  some  considerations  bearing 
upon  the  general  designs  of  the  democratic  party  respecting  the  elec¬ 
tion  laws  rather  than  upon  the  particular  bill  under  consideration. 

There  are  certain  truths  born  with  and  inseparable  from  the  very 
existence  of  this  Forty-sixth  Congress  which  no  power  can  change, 
no  sophistry  pontort,  and  no  cunning  conceal  from  the  American  peo¬ 
ple. 

THE  SOLID  SOUTH  IN  COMMAND. 

The  first  is  that  the  solid  South,  after  an  interregnum  of  eighteen 
years,  on  March  4, 1879,  under  the  name  of  the  democratic  party,  prac¬ 
tically  regained  the  absolute  control  of  both  branches  of  the  legis¬ 
lative  department  of  that  Government  from  which  it  attempted  to 
secede  in  1861,  and  against  which  until  1865  it  waged  the  most  des¬ 
perate  and  colossal  war  of  the  century.  I  am  neither  seeking  for  an 
explanation  of  the  causes  which  produced  an  event  without  parallel 
in  history,  nor  commenting  upon  the  generosity  which  made  it  possi¬ 
ble,  but  am  simply  stating  the  astounding  fact  that  the  South,  which 
surrendered  to  the  United  States  in  1865  at  Appomattox,  governs  the 
United  States  in  1880  at  Washington. 

FIGURES  WHICH  SHOW  IT. 

That  such  is  the  case  is  clearly  shown  by  the  official  records.  The 
Senate  is  composed  of  76  Senators,  representing  thirty-eight  States, 
39  votes  being  a  majority.  Of  these  Senators  42  are  democrats,  33  are 
republicans,  and  the  one  independent  seeks  shelter  from  presidential 
lightning  under  a  solitary  tree  in  the  democratic  meadow.  Of  the 
democratic  Senators  20  are  from  the  eleven  States  which  seceded,  and 
10  more  from  Southern  States  which  sympathized  with  secession,  giv¬ 
ing  30of  the  42  democratic  Senatorsfrom  the  old  slave  States.  Twenty- 
three  of  these  Senators  were  officers  in  the  army  or  government  of  the 
confederacy,  and  compose  a  majority  of  the  democratic  caucus  which 
governs  the  party  that  rules  the  Senate  of  the  United  States. 

The  House  is  composed  of  293  members,  147  votes  being  a  majority. 
Classified  politically,  147  are  democrats,  130  republicans,  and  16  green - 
backers,  the  majority  of  whom  are  democrats,  and  so  vote  on  all  im¬ 
portant  questions.  Classified  sectionally,  68  members  are  from  the 


4  *' 

seceding  States,  and  30  more  from  sympathizing  States,  making  101 
from  the  old  slave  States.  In  the  democratic  caucus,  where  74  votes 
constitute  a  majority,  the  solid  South  has  99  Representatives,  67  of 
whom  were  in  the  confederate  army  or  government ;  and  that  caucus 
rules  the  party  which  rules  the  House. 

In  a  joint  caucus  of  the  democrats  of  the  two  Houses  there  are  189 
votes,  95  being  a  majority.  Of  these  128  are  from  the  old  slave  States 
and  61  from  the  free  States.  And  an  examination  of  the  various  com¬ 
mittees  of  the  two  bodies  will  show  the  same  proportions  and  prepon¬ 
derance. 

THE  DOG  WAGS  THE  TAIL. 

With  respect  to  the  internal  affairs  of  the  democratic  household  an 
outsider  cannot  so  confidently  speak ;  yet  when  the  family  airs  itself 
in  public  it  is  easy  to  see  that  the  old  story  of  human  nature  has  re¬ 
peated  itself,  and  that  the  northern  converts  have  outrun  the  south¬ 
ern  saints  in  zeal.  It  is  an  open  secret  that  as  a  rule  the  former  are 
the  most  radical  and  the  latter  the  most  conservative,  even  when 
measured  by  the  Calhoun  standards  of  democracy. 

But  were  this  not  the  case  the  South  would  rule  the  democratic 
party  for  the  same  reason  that  a  dog  wags  his  tail,  namely,  because 
the  tail  cannot  wag  the  dog.  And  whatever  else  may  be  denied  or 
forgotten  the  fact  looms  up  as  a  mountain  peak  above  the  plain  that 
in  each  House  of  this  Congress  the  solid  South,  which  but  fourteen 
years  ago  was  fighting  the  flag  and  shattering  the  Constitution,  to¬ 
day  rules  the  nation  and  clucks  as  fussily  over  the  u  unconstitu¬ 
tionality  ”  of  election  laws  as  does  an  old  hen  over  one  chicken. 

THE  IMMEDIATE  OEJECT  OF  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY. 

A  second  fact,  as  irrepressible  as  the  first,  one  which  follows  logic¬ 
ally  and  necessarily  from  the  first,  is  the  object  which  the  democratic 
party  deliberately  and  avowedly  set  itself  to  accomplish  in  this  Forty- 
sixth  Congress,  namely,  the  instant  repeal  of  all  statutes  which  its 
leaders  chose  to  designate  as  “  war  measures,”  or  as  measures  “  born  of 
passions  incident  to  the  war.” 

It  is  not  surprising  that  the  gentlemen  from  the  solid  South  should 
entertain  such  a  desire,  and  should  seek  to  accomplish  precisely  this 
object.  It  would  be  very  surprising  if  they  did  not.  Because  the 
people  of  that  section  were  born  into  the  belief  that  slave-holding 
was  a  divine  right,  just  as  Bostonians  are  born  with  the  belief  that 
“  culture  ”  is  strength.  The  perpetuity  of  slavery  was  the  back-bone 
of  their  political  system.  They  intensely  believed  that  the  first  elec¬ 
tion  of  Lincoln  imperatively  necessitated  a  war  by  them  in  defense 
of  theirsocial  and  commercial  existence.  And  with  a  unanimity  rarely 
paralleled  they  gave  satisfactory  proof  of  their  sincerity  upon  many 
a  bloody  battle-field,  and  by  a  patient  endurance  of  privations  as  a 
people  of  which  the  North  had  but  slight  conception.  The  verdict  of 
the  war  was  accepted  from  necessity  and  not  from  choice.  And  the 
supposition  that  their  representatives,  upon  regaining  the  control  of 
Congress,  would  be  satisfied  with  the  political  results  of  the  war,  runs 
athwart  all  the  experience  of  human  nature.  The  North  should  have 
expected  precisely  what  it  now  knows,  namely,  that  they  would  seek 
with  all  the  tenacity  and  dash  of  the  rebellion  to  set  aside  anything 
and  everything  which  is  not  in  accord  with  the  State-rights  theories 
of  Calhoun.  Any  other  expectation  must  rest  upon  one  of  two  erro¬ 
neous  suppositions :  eitherthat  they  were  not  sincere  in  their  war  con¬ 
victions,  or  that  their  humanity  is  of  a  different  type  from  ours. 


B 


“THE  ELECTION  LAWS  MUST  BE  REPEALED.” 

Hence,  the  line  of  attack  chosen  by  the  democratic  leaders  was  pre¬ 
cisely  the  one  which  might  have  been  anticipated  by  every  student 
of  human  nature,  namely,  the  repeal  of  the  laws  regulating  national 
elections ;  because  the  destruction  of  these  laws  subverts  the  national 
power  and  subordinates  it  to  the  power  of  the  States.  As  we  look 
back  at  the  measures  vigorously  pressed  by  the  democratic  party  in 
this  Congress  it  is  easy  to  see  that,  apart  from  routine  business,  the 
only  thing  which  it  has  honestly  tried  to  do  was  to  repeal,  or  hamper, 
or  nullify  four  groups  of  existing  statutes: 

First.  Those  which  empower  the  United  States  Government  to  de¬ 
tect  and  prevent  the  registration  of  illegal  voters  at  its  elections. 

Second.  Those  which  empower  the  Government  to  prevent  intimi¬ 
dation  and  to  maintain  peace  at  its  polls  by  the  exercise  of  its  civil 
power  in  the  person  of  its  marshals  and  the  posse  comitatus. 

Third.  Those  which  empower  the  Government  to  prevent  intimi¬ 
dation  and  preserve  the  peace  at  its  polls  by  the  exercise  of  the  mili¬ 
tary  power  of  the  nation,  as  organized  in  its  Army,  Navy,  or  militia. 

Fourth.  Those  which  empower  the  Government  to  detect  and  pun¬ 
ish  crimes  against  its  election  laws. 

These  various  statutes  are  not  “  war  measures.”  Many  of  them 
were  enacted  in  the  days  of  Washington ;  others  were  passed  at  an 
early  day  to  meet  threatened  insurrections  ;  others  were  necessitated 
by  the  wonderful  increase  of  our  population  from  three  millions  to 
forty-five  millions,  and  by  the  consequent  massing  of  criminal  classes 
in  large  cities.  All  of  these  statutes  tend  to  secure  freedom  of  elec¬ 
tions,  purity  of  ballot,  and  honesty  of  returns.  Their  whole  form  and 
moving  are  in  those  directions  ;  and  they  stand  as  an  army  between 
peaceable  citizens  and  cheating  ruffians.  Their  repeal  would  be  in 
the  interest  of  rascality  and  rioting.  Wipe  them  from  the  statute- 
book  and  ypu  make  the  practice  of  fraud  easier,  its  detection  more 
difficult,  and  its  punishment  impracticable. 

But  to  effect  these  repeals  has  been  the  absorbing  purpose  of  the 
democratic  party  in  the  Forty-sixth  Congress.  It  has  assaulted  each 
and  every  safeguard  against  the  intimidation  of  voters,  against  illegal 
voters,  against  ballot-box  stuffing,  against  false  counting,  against 
thugs,  white-liners,  and  ku-klux  at  the  nation’s  elections.  It  has  lost 
no  opportunity,  spared  no  effort,  and  used  every  means  to  destroy 
these  safeguards. 

WHY  THE  DEMOCRATS  WANT  THE  ELECTION  LAWS  REPEALED. 

And  the  reasons  for  these  efforts  are  patent  and  twofold. 

First.  The  theory  that  a  State  has  the  right  to  secede  having  been 
negatived  by  the  war,  there  is  only  one  remaining  mode  of  subordi¬ 
nating  the  power  of  the  nation  to  the  power  of  the  States,  and  that 
is  by  destroying  the  purity  and  freedom  of  national  elections. 

Second.  It  is  only  by  such  subordination  that  a  small  minority  can 
hope  to  maintain  its  rule  over  a  large  majority. 

Whether  the  first  of  these  reasons  operates  in  the  minds  of  many 
persons,  is  a  question  which  every  man  can  decide  for  himself.  But 
that  the  second  reason  is  sufficiently  powerful  and  operative  in  many 
localities  to  influence  large  masses  of  men  there  can  be  no  question. 
In  many  districts  represented  on  this  floor  the  colored  voters  are  an 
overwhelming  majority.  When  permitted  to  do  so  they  have  repeat¬ 
edly  chosen  men  of  their  own  race  as  representatives;  and  the  fact 
that  they  do  not  now  follow  this  rule  of  human  nature  is  strong  evi¬ 
dence  that  they  are  not  permitted  to  cast  a  free  ballot  and  have  an 


6 


honest  count.  I  could  name  eleven  members  of  this  body,  casting 
eleven  votes  in  the  House  and  fifteen  or  twenty  votes  in  its  commit¬ 
tees,  while  I  cast  but  one,  and  yet  the  51,110  votes  polled  at  my  elec¬ 
tion  outnumber  the  total  of  all  the  votes  polled  in  all  of  these  dis¬ 
tricts  put  together.  The  number  of  votes  polled  in  the  three  Kansas 
districts  is  greater  than  the  whole  number  polled  in  twenty  south¬ 
ern  districts. 

It  is  wholly  immaterial  what  explanation  may  be  given  of  these 
facts  ;  you  cannot  explain  the  fact  away.  It  remains  all  the  same  as 
an  undeniable  fact  after  you  are  done,  and  it  proves  this  much  at 
least :  that  some  force,  be  it  one  thing  or  be  it  another,  which  is  not 
operative  in  the  North  is  operative  and  powerfully  effective  in  the 
South.  Be  the  cause  what  it  may,  the  result  is  that  a  small  minority 
in  the  Southern  States  casts  more  votes  in  this  House  and  in  its  com¬ 
mittees  than  are  cast  by  a  much  greater  majority  in  the  North  and 
West. 

No  gentlemen  better  understand  the  worth  of  this  advantage  to 
the  democratic  party  than  do  its  leaders,  and  no  section  more  thor¬ 
oughly  realizes  the  vital  importance  of  retaining  this  advantage  than 
does  the  democratic  South ;  and  these  patent  facts  afford  a  satisfactory 
explanation  to  the  country  for  the  extraordinary  zeal  shown  by  that 
party,  and  the  revolutionary  means  sought  to  be  used  b^  it  in  at¬ 
tempting  to  repeal  the  national  election  laws. 

DIFFERENCE  BETWEEN  NORTHERN  AND  SOUTHERN  VIEWS. 

I  desire  to  give  full  credit  to  gentlemen  on  the  other  side.  When 
they  declare,  as  they  have  repeatedly  done,  that  the  doctrine  of  se¬ 
cession  was  irrevocably  decided  by  the  war,  that  the  South  will  here¬ 
after  be  as  loyal  to  the  flag  as  will  the  North,  that  in  case  of  a  foreign 
war  the  men  in  gray  would  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  with  the  boys 
in  blue,  and  that  this  Union  is  one  and  indivisible,  both  now  and  for¬ 
ever,  I  accept  their  declarations  as  genuine  and  true. 

But  the  difference  between  us,  as  I  understand  it,  is  this :  At  the 
close  of  the  war  the  North  somehow  jumped  into  the  belief  that  the 
real  issue  in  trial  was  not  simply  the  question  whether  a  State  had 
the  right  to  secede,  this  was  only  the  pretext;  nor  chiefly  the  matter 
of  slavery,  that  was  only  an  incident;  but  that  the  main  and  real 
question  was  the  whole  doctrine  of  Calhoun  State  rights,  as  contra¬ 
distinguished  from  the  Websterian  doctrine  of  nationality.  We  re¬ 
garded  secession  as  merely  a  sample  of  the  cargo  of  claims,  and  that 
when  the  South  surrendered  the  sample  it  surrendered  the  cargo.  In 
other  words,  we  supposed  that  the  whole  Calhoun  theory  was  on  trial 
in  the  right  of  secession,  and  that  the  overruling  of  that  alleged  right 
was  a  final  settlement  of  the  entire  theory. 

You,  on  the  other  hand,  now  claim  that  the  only  question  at  issue 
was  the  single  item  of  secession,  and  that  all  other  items  of  the  Cal¬ 
houn  doctrine  are  yet  in  dispute.  I  can  readily  see  how  this  position 
is  consistent  with  your  declarations  of  loyalty  to  the  Union.  But  I 
fancy  that  the  American  people  will  decide  the  remaining  counts 
quite  as  effectively  by  ballot  as  the  heresy  of  secession  was  decided 
by  the  bullet.  In  any  event,  it  is  well  that  the  present  issue  shall 
be  clearly  defined  and  precisely  understood  by  all  parties. 

THE  TRUE  ISSUE  BETWEEN  THE  REPUBLICAN  AND  DEMOCRATIC  PARTIES. 

And  that  issue  is  simply  the  question  whether  “the  Constitution 
as  it  was,”  or  “the  Constitution  as  it  is,”  forms  the  organic  law  of 
these  United  States;  and  whether,  in  the  interpretation  of  that  in- 


7 


strument,  we  are  to  follow  the  teachings  of  Washington,  Jackson, 
Webster,  and  Lincoln,  or  those  of  Calhoun  and  Jefferson  Davis.  Is 
this  a  nation  or  is  it  a  confederacy  of  States?  Is  the  Constitution  a 
mere  agreement  of  copartnership,  or  is  it  a  constitution,  a  something 
which  makes  the  States  “  stand  together,”  which  binds  them  into 
one,  as  motherly  love  binds  the  children  into  one  family  and  makes 
them  forever  to  stand  together  as  one  family  in  the  eyes  of  man 
and  God?  Are  the  laws  passed  by  Congress  in  pursuance  of  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  that  Constitution  equal  in  force  to  those  of  a  State?  Do 
they  reach  over  every  valley,  mountain,  and  acre,  or  are  they  estopped 
and  bounded  back  by  State  lines?  Are  the  people,  the  whole  peo¬ 
ple,  whether  living  in  one  State  or  another  or  in  no  State,  the  full 
and  final  source  of  power,  the  complete  sovereign  ;  or  are  the  States 
the  sovereign? 

All  of  these  questions  are  in  issue,  and  they  are  all  embraced  in  the 
one  question  whether  we  have  the  constitution  of  Jackson  or  of  Cal¬ 
houn,  that  of  Lincoln  or  that  of  Jefferson  Davis  ?  I  risk  nothing  in 
averring  that  the  differences  which  have  existed  between  the  two 
parties  on  a  hundred  bills  before  this  House  arose  from  exactly  this 
source  and  from  no  other.  And  just  this  great  question  is  the  real 
difference  to-day,  and  for  years  will  be,  between  the  democratic  and 
republican  parties.  The  former  is  governed  by  the  principles  of  Cal¬ 
houn,  the  latter  by  the  principles  of  Webster;  and  it  is  for  the  people 
to  decide  between  them  at  the  ballot-box. 

REVOLUTIONARY  ATTEMPTS  OF  THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY. 

There  is  a  third  fact,  inseparable  from  the  very  existence  of  this 
Congress,  namely,  the  unconstitutional  and  revolutionary  methods  by 
which  the  democratic  party  has  sought  to  repeal  the  election  laws. 

In  the  closing  hours  of  the  Forty-fifth  Congress  a  democratic  House 
said  to  a  republican  Senate,  you  must  either  consent  to  the  repeal  of 
these  laws,  as  effected  by  the  riders  on  the  appropriation  bills,  or  the 
whole  machinery  of  the  Government  shall  stop  for  want  of  money. 
Under  the  Constitution  the  consent  of  the  House,  the  consent  of  the 
Senate,  and  the  consent  of  the  President  are  each  and  all  necessary 
to  the  enactment  of  a  law.  But  the  House  alone  consented  to  this  re¬ 
peal;  the  Senate  dissented  ;  and  the  alternative  which  the  democratic 
party  thus  presented  was  precisely  the  alternative  which  a  highway¬ 
man  presents  at  the  mouth  of  a  revolver,  u  Your  money  or  your  life!” 
The  Senate  promptly  rejected  a  method  alike  unconstitutional  and 
outrageous ;  the  House  passionately  refused  appropriations  ;  and  by 
so  doing  compelled  the  President  either  to  call  an  extra  session  or 
consent  to  the  destruction  of  the  Government — a  question  which  he 
very  promptly  decided. 

And  thus  it  was  that  this  democratic  Congress,  having  control  of 
both  Houses,  prematurely  forced  itself  into  existence  by  the  extra 
democratic  session,  which  proved  to  be  extra-democratic  folly,  and, 
therefore,  utterly  useless,  as  the  regular  quantity  and  quality  of  that 
article  are  amply  sufficient. 

In  that  extra  session  the  only  two  arguments  advanced  for  the 
repeal  of  the  election  laws  were  : 

First.  That  they  were  unconstitutional  ;  a  point  which  has  since 
been  ruled  upon  by  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  affirming  their 
constitutionality. 

Second:  The  argument  of  the  brigand,  no  longer  addressed  to  the 
Senate  by  the  House,  but  addressed  by  both  House  and  Senate  to  the 
President. 


8 


For  months  these  walls  rang  with  passionate  declarations  of  demo¬ 
cratic  orators  that  not  a  dollar  should  be  given  till  their  demands 
were  granted.  Like  the  leap  of  the  lion  was  the  reply,  “  You  failed  to 
shoot  the  Government  to  death,  and  now  starve  it  to  death  if  you 
dare !”  And  the  lion  heart  which  uttered  those  words  will  wield  the 
veto  power  for  four  years  to  come.  The  issue  was  squarely  made 
with  President  Hayes,  “  sign  or  starve !  ”  He  did  neither  !  He  vetoed ; 
vetoed  with  the  regularity  and  dispatch  of  a  trip-hammer  ;  pounded 
some  glimmerings  of  common  sense  into  the  democratic  head ;  and  the 
people  pounded  the  king  of  the  democratic  caucus  out  of  the  Senate 
and  James  A.  Garfield  into  it. 

Then  came  the  regular  session  ;  and  the  only  tangible  thing  which 
the  democratic  party  has  done  has  been  to  pass  the  appropriation 
which  it  had  vociferously  protested  it  would  not  pass,  and  then  ad¬ 
journ!  It  wanted  “  to  go  home !  ”  The  election  laws  remain  unre 
pealed,  and  the  democratic  party  will  remain  at  home. 


O 


/ 


% 


